TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (11) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat certain contraband goods were found in the cavity of the Crane Vessel and it is the case of the Department that this appellant along with S/Shri Dilip Kumar Dutta, Subhas Chandra Roy and some others are involved in the removal of the contraband goods in question by keeping them in the cavity. This finding was challenged in the present appeal. 3. The learned Advocate, Shri D.K. Mukhopadhyay in the first instance contended that the seizure list copy was not furnished to the appellant. He stated that this is a serious infirmity. Secondly, he contended that the show cause notice is very vague. There are no circumstances to implicate the appellant that these goods are also removed by the appellant as an associate. He further contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d stated that on 8-3-1986 when the Crane Vessel was off-loading the goods at about 2 a.m. they were not there since it was a recess period. They also stated that at that very time Shri Sadhan Chandra Mallick, the appellant was getting down along with 5/6 other persons with five/six gunny bags into the forward hold of the Crane Vessel. He also drew my attention that they had stated that when they had asked him about the contents of the said gunny bags 2/3 unknown persons compelled them to keep shut at the point of revolver and other dangerous weapons and Shri Sadhan Chandra Mallick co-operated with those unknown persons and stated that if any person comes to know about the goods then Shri Roy and Shri Dutta would be killed. This statement wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Dutta was on duty on the board at 8.30 p.m. He also stated that this very statement was relied on by him corroborating the statements of S/Shri Dutta and Roy. Moreover, it is also contended that the show cause notice was not vague. In this connection, he drew my attention at Page 9 of the Para 2 of the show cause notice. Relying on the above averment I have found therein as advanced by Shri Biswas that the show cause notice is specific. With respect to the non-mention of sub-section of Section 111(a) or (b) Shri Biswas based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Steel v. Union of India reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J355. He also cited the judgment in the case of R.J. Patel v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y person comes to know about the goods, then Sri Subhas Chandra Roy and Shri Dilip Kumar Dutta would be killed. It is no doubt true that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration. These are the principles laid down by the Tribunal in Sukar Narain's case which was relied on by the learned SDR. But in that case besides statement of the co-accused there were accounts maintained with respect to the smuggling and the same was seized. So also independent crew members corroborated the version of the co-accused. There was independent corroboration put forth in that case. But in this present case the statement of one co-accused is corroborated by the other co-accused and there is no independent corroboration. The mere facts that....